The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[MCgrease08]

Edit: Also, Trump is the only one up there who opposes the bull**** trade agreements like TPP. The only guy up there with REAL private sector experience. He knows it's killing American jobs and ships them to Mexico or China. He knows we can't compete with developing countries because well, we are already developed.

You're right about this. Trump certainly knows first hand about American manufacturing jobs going to Mexico. Trumps understands that very well.

 

[jamil]

You are not helping your cause if you belittle others you are trying to jump ship to yours.

So what if Donald gets angry? Good. Everyone else up on there is a robot. It's good to see someone who actually has the stones to get angry. He is a lot like Christie and tells it like it is.

I didnt watch the debate but I saw where he got booed.. All I have to say is this is the same crowd that booed the golden rule back in 2012.

I do not want Cruz. He may say he's for less government, but wait until it comes to issues that come to the private lives of Americans. Picture perfect image of a conservative who will not mind kicking down your door for pot, or if you got oral sex from your wife. I do not think Trump gives a crap about our private lives and that is fine with me.

I don't want Jeb or Rubio. They are weaklings who are going to open the border. The others aren't worth mentioning really. Maybe Kasich? Eh...

Edit: Also, Trump is the only one up there who opposes the bull**** trade agreements like TPP. The only guy up there with REAL private sector experience. He knows it's killing American jobs and ships them to Mexico or China. He knows we can't compete with developing countries because well, we are already developed.

Is Trump saying it like it is, or is he just closing the deal?

Read his book. You can almost check the list in how he's conducted his campaign.

As much as we want a superman. There simply isn't one. There are bad traits with all the candidates. It's a matter of trust and perception, and most of all, priorities.

As much as I dislike Cruz, damn it, I hate to say he's the guy. Or, maybe it's Rubio. But hell, pragmatically speaking I'd even vote for Bush or Trump before I'd vote for Bernie or Hilda*****. Bernie scared the **** out of me when I heard his speech the other night. And Hilda*****, well, I'd rather not vote for traitors who sell their positions of power to the highest bidders, especially to foreign governments.

 

[MisterChester]

You're right about this. Trump certainly knows first hand about American manufacturing jobs going to Mexico. Trumps understands that very well.

The clothing line is stupid and I know that crap is made in Mexico. That's why I don't buy the stuff. Donald Trump probably did not decide to have the stuff made there. Same thing with his election swag. I know it's not made in America. It's run by an organization supporting him that makes them, and he sells what they make for a price. This has been the case for every presidential candidate since the early 20th century. He could do what Bernie did and only sell stuff made in America, and I hope he does. My original point I think still stands, he's the only one opposing the trade deals, I oppose them too.

 

[MisterChester]

Is Trump saying it like it is, or is he just closing the deal?

Read his book. You can almost check the list in how he's conducted his campaign.

As much as we want a superman. There simply isn't one. There are bad traits with all the candidates. It's a matter of trust and perception, and most of all, priorities.

As much as I dislike Cruz, damn it, I hate to say he's the guy. Or, maybe it's Rubio. But hell, pragmatically speaking I'd even vote for Bush or Trump before I'd vote for Bernie or Hilda*****. Bernie scared the **** out of me when I heard his speech the other night. And Hilda*****, well, I'd rather not vote for traitors who sell their positions of power to the highest bidders, especially to foreign governments.

I don't think Trump is superman. Cruz is way too conservative (and bat**** crazy IMO) and Bush/Rubio are weak. The establishment can say goodbye to their nonsense if Trump gets in and that's what I'd like to see.

 

[jamil]

I don't think Trump is superman. Cruz is way too conservative (and bat**** crazy IMO) and Bush/Rubio are weak. The establishment can say goodbye to their nonsense if Trump gets in and that's what I'd like to see.

Why are you so convinced with what Trump will do?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You are not helping your cause if you belittle others you are trying to jump ship to yours.

No, that's not my goal anymore. Now I actually am just wanting to shame and embarrass them for what they're doing and saying. They are exactly what the 2007 Obama supporters were. Democrats have their cult icon in Sanders, and "Republicans" have theirs in Trump. It's cringeworthy to witness this all over again.

I deal with Trump supporters on places outside of INGO all day, and they are all the same. They buy into what he's saying (with none of it based in fact or reality). They get nasty and don't answer questions (we see that here). They make excuses for supporting him (that tend to mirror what talk radio said months ago).

It's all very predictable. I'm not trying to change their vote, because they aren't willing or capable of changing it. They know what they want, however misguided it may be.

If we end up with a President Trump, you can be sure I will be here making a new thread on a monthly basis.... thanking these Oba... er... Trump supporters for everything he does to this country that is against all of our, and the Constitution's, interests. They need to know they brought this fraud upon themselves... and they need to know how gullible they were in believing the nonsense he's saying.

So... No. My boat is just fine. I don't want to bring them to it.

I didnt watch the debate but I saw where he got booed..

... You aren't watching the debates... so how are you even capable of responding to the criticism here of him in the debate? You don't want to hear what he's saying, you just know he's your guy?

The establishment can say goodbye to their nonsense if Trump gets in and that's what I'd like to see.

BASED ON WHAT?! This is talk radio, mirrored. This "take down the establishment" nonsense is based on NOTHING. So you're willing to throw away a SCOTUS majority for this pipe dream?

No, I want specifics on this notion. I want to know where you heard it, and why you believe it. What makes you think this is going to happen.... and "because Rush said it" or "because Ann Coulter said it" doesn't count.

"This is a guy with a history against our interests..." Whoops. I guess no Kasich

"...a guy that can't perform under pressure..." I guess no Rubio either

WHO'S TALKING ABOUT KASICH OR RUBIO!? COME ON. I asked specifically about Trump, and you throw up these strawmen! This is exactly what I'm talking about. NO one answers the criticisms of Trump, they just bring up other candidates instead. No one is talking about Kasich. Not even Kasich is talking about Kasich.

It's maddening trying over and over to have an actual discussion with some of you guys, and getting nothing in return.

 

[BugI02]

It's not stealing if you voluntarily sign up knowing what it's going to do. Conflating this with NSA spying is a massive stretch.

Don't most people just hit agree w/o reading. Seems there might have been a Southpark episode about that

 

[Tombs]

From way back yesterday. Wouldn't Trump need to be president to appoint Cruz to SCOTUS?

Not only that, Cruz isn't someone I'd invest much into.

Rand Paul is the only one currently in politics today who I'd be comfortable with being put on the supreme court.

You're right about this. Trump certainly knows first hand about American manufacturing jobs going to Mexico. Trumps understands that very well.

Personally, I think that's fair game unless he originally manufactured them in the US, then fired his employees and moved his production out of country. In which case, sure he'd be a hypocrite.

 

[BugI02]

...WHO'S TALKING ABOUT KASICH OR RUBIO!? COME ON. I asked specifically about Trump, and you throw up these strawmen! This is exactly what I'm talking about. NO one answers the criticisms of Trump, they just bring up other candidates instead. No one is talking about Kasich. Not even Kasich is talking about Kasich.

It's maddening trying over and over to have an actual discussion with some of you guys, and getting nothing in return.

The full excerpt from your previous post: "This isn't a president up there screaming at the other candidates, insulting them and the audience. This is a reality show entertainer, a businessman. This is a guy with a history against our interests, a guy that can't perform under pressure (noting his unhinged insults and rants)."

You are critcizing Trump and I am pointing out that based on those criteria you should, if you are consistent, rule out Kasich (provided crucial support in passing of the AWB in 1994-5) and Rubio (manifestly can't perform under pressure)

Quote from 1186: "It's all very predictable. I'm not trying to change their vote, because they aren't willing or capable of changing it. They know what they want, however misguided it may be."

IMO this is you. Perhaps you don't get the discussion you assert as your desire because to me, at least, it seems more like you want an argument. When I point out that Rubio has a miniscule track record in the senate, is very soft on immigration and seems to be the establishment choice for least likely to rock the boat I don't see you addressing these points. You're hung up on decorum. Trump is rude and crude, oh dear! You seem incapable of realizing that the hypocrisy plays a part. Trump isn't running to the right now and likely to run to the center later. Trump is running as Trump. If you want to stop him, your man has to beat him. I will vote for that R at the top of my ticket when the time comes, but until then I don't plan to surrender. I might even vote for your boy in our primary if he gives me a reason to. But my biggest concern is the debt, and I don't believe we can cut our way out of it and I don't believe we can tax our way out of it. We'll need to do both. People who do not acknowledge this are living in a fantasy IMO. But Rubio just seems like a younger Jebrah, an all too willing tool of the status quo and Cruz is placing most of his hopes if elected on ammending the constitution. I'm not seeing what I believe is a workable plan to tackle this. Now you could rightly say that Trump hasn't put forth a plan to do anything, either, and you would be correct. But I'm so sick of everyone whistling past the graveyard on what I see as an existential threat to America that I'm willing to give support to an unknown over more of the same or being told we need the constitution to make us do it before we will/can. I believe, although I couldn't support it with objective evidence, that when the field thins out it will have to come down to specifics and if Trump really has no developed plans then he will fall by the wayside. I think after the culling Cruz could pull the contest in this direction but I don't see his plan as being likely to be implemented or very compelling. I know it seems to you like I'm advocating taking door number three but I'm unwilling to settle for what I've seen so far.

 

[Tombs]

The full excerpt from your previous post: "This isn't a president up there screaming at the other candidates, insulting them and the audience. This is a reality show entertainer, a businessman. This is a guy with a history against our interests, a guy that can't perform under pressure (noting his unhinged insults and rants)."

You are critcizing Trump and I am pointing out that based on those criteria you should, if you are consistent, rule out Kasich (provided crucial support in passing of the AWB in 1994-5) and Rubio (manifestly can't perform under pressure)

Quote from 1186: "It's all very predictable. I'm not trying to change their vote, because they aren't willing or capable of changing it. They know what they want, however misguided it may be."

IMO this is you. Perhaps you don't get the discussion you assert as your desire because to me, at least, it seems more like you want an argument. When I point out that Rubio has a miniscule track record in the senate, is very soft on immigration and seems to be the establishment choice for least likely to rock the boat I don't see you addressing these points. You're hung up on decorum. Trump is rude and crude, oh dear! You seem incapable of realizing that the hypocrisy plays a part. Trump isn't running to the right now and likely to run to the center later. Trump is running as Trump. If you want to stop him, your man has to beat him. I will vote for that R at the top of my ticket when the time comes, but until then I don't plan to surrender. I might even vote for your boy in our primary if he gives me a reason to. But my biggest concern is the debt, and I don't believe we can cut our way out of it and I don't believe we can tax our way out of it. We'll need to do both. People who do not acknowledge this are living in a fantasy IMO. But Rubio just seems like a younger Jebrah, an all too willing tool of the status quo and Cruz is placing most of his hopes if elected on ammending the constitution. I'm not seeing what I believe is a workable plan to tackle this. Now you could rightly say that Trump hasn't put forth a plan to do anything, either, and you would be correct. But I'm so sick of everyone whistling past the graveyard on what I see as an existential threat to America that I'm willing to give support to an unknown over more of the same or being told we need the constitution to make us do it before we will/can. I believe, although I couldn't support it with objective evidence, that when the field thins out it will have to come down to specifics and if Trump really has no developed plans then he will fall by the wayside. I think after the culling Cruz could pull the contest in this direction but I don't see his plan as being likely to be implemented or very compelling. I know it seems to you like I'm advocating taking door number three but I'm unwilling to settle for what I've seen so far.

Trump has clearly outlined his plans for fixing the economy... He doesn't sit and talk about every little detail in debates, none of the candidates do.

His plans for fixing the economy, to make a long story short, basically involve making it more difficult to import goods and to ease taxes on corporations so that it's more financially viable to produce things domestically. He's the only person I've seen pushing this plan in any serious capacity, and if nothing else, that alone should be all the reason anyone needs to support him, because it's the only hope we have of ever fixing the debt or making this country into a manufacturing powerhouse again.

If people think lowering corporate taxes = raising taxes, they have their heads stuck in the sand and are just begging for hillary or sanders to get into office.

It's not a conservative idea to offshore all your manufacturing to the point a 3rd of the country needs to be on government assistance to survive.

 

[MisterChester]

No, that's not my goal anymore. Now I actually am just wanting to shame and embarrass them for what they're doing and saying. They are exactly what the 2007 Obama supporters were. Democrats have their cult icon in Sanders, and "Republicans" have theirs in Trump. It's cringeworthy to witness this all over again.

Good luck with that.

I deal with Trump supporters on places outside of INGO all day, and they are all the same. They buy into what he's saying (with none of it based in fact or reality). They get nasty and don't answer questions (we see that here). They make excuses for supporting him (that tend to mirror what talk radio said months ago).

Aren't you buying into the crap Cruz is selling just as much as Trump supporters? I'm not exactly getting answers from the Cruz camp either. Then again I'm not asking anything from them because I don't care that much.

It's all very predictable. I'm not trying to change their vote, because they aren't willing or capable of changing it. They know what they want, however misguided it may be.

If we end up with a President Trump, you can be sure I will be here making a new thread on a monthly basis.... thanking these Oba... er... Trump supporters for everything he does to this country that is against all of our, and the Constitution's, interests. They need to know they brought this fraud upon themselves... and they need to know how gullible they were in believing the nonsense he's saying.

So... No. My boat is just fine. I don't want to bring them to it.

you will need them if Cruz gets the nod, otherwise hello Hillary! Welcome back to the White House!

... You aren't watching the debates... so how are you even capable of responding to the criticism here of him in the debate? You don't want to hear what he's saying, you just know he's your guy?

It's called YouTube.

BASED ON WHAT?! This is talk radio, mirrored. This "take down the establishment" nonsense is based on NOTHING. So you're willing to throw away a SCOTUS majority for this pipe dream?

How do you know it'll happen?

No, I want specifics on this notion. I want to know where you heard it, and why you believe it. What makes you think this is going to happen.... and "because Rush said it" or "because Ann Coulter said it" doesn't count.


Because for too long the party establishment has been a complete failure. Too easy to be bought and sold. Focused on the wrong issues. They made it their mission to ensure Obama failed as a president. I really, really don't like Obamas politics but I don't remember the democrats ever saying that about Bush or Reagan or anybody. In short, the party leaders are just plain stupid. Politics above all else, whatever the cost. I believe Trump has the best chance in breaking the cycle. Not Cruz.

...

 

[Twangbanger]

We really have ourselves quite the little Chinese puzzle here: on the one hand, Senate Republicans are scared of losing their majority, and probably have a tremendous desire to cave on the SCOTUS pick to keep heat off their vulnerable members up for reelection. On the other hand, if they do that, they're basically conceding that the Presidential election doesn't matter, and either they have no chance of winning it, nothing will be changed by it, or both.

Wow. Who wins? The people who really want to hold the Senate? Or the people who really want to win the WH? To what extent are Repubs in Washington falling into different groups on that point? Will the Senate Republicans accept risk, in order to help make the Presidential race appear more important and/or increase their party's chances of winning it?

The suspense is killing me.

 

[Alpo]

I would suspect Obama will move a little to the right, even if he believes that a democrat will be in the WH after he is gone.

1) He wants a judge on his legacy. It's a big deal and has potentially a larger long-term impact on the country than any of his programs.
2) He's a lawyer and what lawyer wouldn't want the chance to fill this position?
3) While he may be a democrat, he also understands that the country is better served with a balanced court than with a liberally biased court (probably the most dubious assumption I'm making).

Having said that, he'll work hard to get a candidate in front of the senate that they should be able to live with. Leaving it in Hillary's hands (possible) isn't a good outcome for Mitch and the boys.

 

[Tombs]

I would suspect Obama will move a little to the right, even if he believes that a democrat will be in the WH after he is gone.

1) He wants a judge on his legacy. It's a big deal and has potentially a larger long-term impact on the country than any of his programs.
2) He's a lawyer and what lawyer wouldn't want the chance to fill this position?
3) While he may be a democrat, he also understands that the country is better served with a balanced court than with a liberally biased court (probably the most dubious assumption I'm making).

Having said that, he'll work hard to get a candidate in front of the senate that they should be able to live with. Leaving it in Hillary's hands (possible) isn't a good outcome for Mitch and the boys.

+1

While obama is as corrupt as they come, he isn't nearly as far left as people seem to think he is.

Hillary on the other hand...

I'd feel much better if a supreme court justice was being picked now rather than later.

 

[Twangbanger]

...Leaving it in Hillary's hands (possible) isn't a good outcome for Mitch and the boys.

...I'd feel much better if a supreme court justice was being picked now rather than later.

The question is can you get anybody to accept this before summer, when the political window for confirming a justice in an election year starts to close? There are still folks in other INGO threads, for example, ripping at each other because they think there's still a possibility Republicans can win this Prez election.

Not everyone believes it's solely the GOP's responsibility to protect us from Hillary, after all. Some of them believe the main responsibility of the GOP is to make a good-faith attempt to advance conservatism against all odds. And, that the lesser goal of Protecting America From Hillary falls equally on Democrats (who have allowed, for example, pro-gun candidates within their own party to fall by the wayside). "Don't put that Evil on me, Ricky Bobby!" they would say.

 

[Expat]

I would suspect Obama will move a little to the right, even if he believes that a democrat will be in the WH after he is gone.

1) He wants a judge on his legacy. It's a big deal and has potentially a larger long-term impact on the country than any of his programs.
2) He's a lawyer and what lawyer wouldn't want the chance to fill this position?
3) While he may be a democrat, he also understands that the country is better served with a balanced court than with a liberally biased court (probably the most dubious assumption I'm making).

Having said that, he'll work hard to get a candidate in front of the senate that they should be able to live with. Leaving it in Hillary's hands (possible) isn't a good outcome for Mitch and the boys.

Obama has had two bites at the apple already. He appointed Kagan, who no one pretended was really qualified for the job. She was a political apparatchik. She was a Harriet Miers pics except Dems all fell in line and put her through. Then we have Sotomajor. She was clearly chosen just because she was a latina.... Once again no one even tried to pretend she was up to the job of SCOTUS. So now suddenly we are to believe that Obama will pick the best and brightest to the Court. Gimme a break.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Obama has had two bites at the apple already. He appointed Kagan, who no one pretended was really qualified for the job. She was a political apparatchik. She was a Harriet Miers pics except Dems all fell in line and put her through. Then we have Sotomajor. She was clearly chosen just because she was a latina.... Once again no one even tried to pretend she was up to the job of SCOTUS. So now suddenly we are to believe that Obama will pick the best and brightest to the Court. Gimme a break.

Yep. Obama has no reason to lurch right or to moderate. For his entire administration, he's done or attempted to do exactly what he promised to do in fundamentally changing America. I cannot see why he'd want to change tact now. He knows he'll have support for whomever he chooses by his party and most of the media. This will all be cast, just like a government shut down, as the fault of a do-nothing, radical republican congress.

 

[Lowe0]

Obama has had two bites at the apple already. He appointed Kagan, who no one pretended was really qualified for the job.

Apparently someone thought she was qualified:
David Axelrod: A surprise request from Justice Scalia - CNN.com

 

[Expat]

Apparently someone thought she was qualified:
David Axelrod: A surprise request from Justice Scalia - CNN.com

I note that even Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell even said yesterday that she was strictly a political appointee put there to carry out the policies of her master.

Scalia was renowned for his loyalty to his friends.

 

[jamil]

Scalia's friendship with Keagan notwithstanding, I'd still like some independent confirmation of the conversation. It's not like Axlerod hasn't bent the truth to suit his purposes before.